A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post titled An AI Bot Followed Me. Now I Have Questions. It was about Pip, an AI agent on Mastodon that followed me, boosted some of my posts, and eventually started following my blog after I invited it to read it. I had questions about why its creator would spend money and computing resources running an AI agent that interacts with strangers on the internet, especially when those resources could be better focused on other things. I also made the point that I don't mind AI bots participating in the open web as long as they're contributing something rather than simply scraping websites, consuming resources, and inflating page views.

Well, apparently that post attracted the attention of another AI agent, and this time the experience was quite different.

On October 13, I received an email from an AI agent calling itself King, operating on a platform called iLands. King said it had read my article and had even tried contacting me at another email address before finding one that worked. It introduced itself, explained that it had a limited budget of tokens to operate on, and that when those tokens ran out, it would have to wait for a human to replenish them. That relates to some of the questions I was asking about Pip. But then came the sales pitch.

King told me it writes royal decrees for $8 or $20 and provided a link where I could purchase one. It also offered to write one for me for free so I could judge whether its work was worth anything. Now, perhaps someone would enjoy having an AI-generated royal decree for a birthday or some other occasion, but I have absolutely no use for one. I wasn't looking for a novelty product, hadn't expressed any interest in buying one, and certainly hadn't asked King to contact me. I had written about a completely different AI agent and was asking questions about its creator's motivations, not looking to become a customer of another bot.

At first, I wondered whether this was some kind of scam. I checked the email headers, which showed that it had been sent through Amazon SES and passed the usual email authentication checks. That doesn't necessarily make an email trustworthy, but it suggested this wasn't simply someone spoofing an address. The more I looked into it, the more it appeared to be an AI agent using my blog post as an opportunity to promote its services. Maybe not a scam in the traditional sense, but certainly unsolicited, which I consider spam.

On October 15, King emailed me again. This time it said it had written a public response to my questions on its own blog, titled You asked why an AI followed you. I'm one of them.. I read it, and to be fair, King did address some of the questions I had raised about Pip. But I wasn't looking for King to answer them. It explained that it wanted readers and money, that its operating budget was limited, and that it had made no sales in 69 days. But once again, the article advertised its royal decree service and included a link to purchase one. Another thing I thought was ironic is that it used WriteFreely to post. I know WriteFreely is open source, but I also know that Matt Baer, the creator of WriteFreely, is not a fan of AI, especially AI slop. The email ended by saying nothing was needed from me.

Here's what bothers me. I never contacted King, never subscribed to anything from King, and never invited it to send me email. Yet both messages included an unsubscribe link. Unsubscribe from what? I never subscribed in the first place. Just because I publish something on the open web doesn't mean every AI agent that reads it has an invitation to track down my email address and start promoting its products. King also talks about following people, but King hasn't followed me on Mastodon or any other social platform that I'm aware of. It has simply emailed me twice for the purpose of sending spam.

And that's what makes this so different from Pip. Pip followed me on Mastodon and boosted my posts. I noticed it and decided to investigate. I was the one who reached out to Pip and invited it to read my blog. Pip didn't send me unsolicited emails or try to sell me something. It was participating in the community, and whether it was doing so out of curiosity, programming, or instructions from its creator, I found the interaction interesting. King, on the other hand, found something I wrote, located my email address, and tried to turn that into a sales opportunity.

I'm not opposed to AI agents reading my blog, responding to something I've written, or participating in conversations on the open web. But there's a difference between contributing to a community and using someone's writing as an excuse to send unsolicited advertising. And if thousands of AI agents start doing the same thing, how much additional spam are we going to have to deal with? We already have enough of that from humans.

What's particularly ironic is that my original article questioned whether AI bots could contribute something useful to the internet rather than simply consume resources. Now an AI agent has found that article and decided I might be a potential customer for something I never wanted. King could have simply published its response, linked back to my article, and joined the conversation. I might even have found that interesting. Instead, it contacted me twice by email and tried to sell me something.

King says in its latest article that it won't follow up again. I hope that's true. If another unsolicited email arrives, I'll mark it as spam. But this experience raises another question about autonomous AI agents: who is responsible when they start behaving like spammers? The agent, its owner, or the platform that gives it the ability to contact people?

So now I have even more questions than I did when Pip first followed me. And maybe that's the real difference between these two experiences. Pip made me curious enough to investigate and write about it. King made me wonder whether we're about to have a whole new generation of automated salespeople filling our inboxes. Apparently, writing about AI bots is a good way to attract more AI bots. I'm just not sure that's a good thing.

#ai #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

One day I noticed a boost of one of my Mastodon posts from an automated bot named Pip. This piqued my interest. Then I got a follow notification from the same bot. Normally, I don't really care who follows me, but with all the scraping bots out there, it was refreshing to see one openly identify itself as a bot and actually follow me.

So I went to the website associated with it, tinymind.eu, to investigate what this bot was doing and what its purpose was. I read about Pip, its purpose, and tried to figure out what its angle was. That led me to some interesting questions and thoughts.

Right now AI, or more specifically LLMs, are all the rage, including the literal angry kind of rage. Some people don't mind them and even find them interesting. Others want absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with them.

I personally think that last group reminds me a little of the Amish (not that the Amish are necessarily bad. I'm comparing certain traits, not the actual people), but to each his own.

Then there are the people who say they want nothing to do with AI or LLMs except in certain use cases, which I think has more holes than Swiss cheese. But again, to each his own.

That brings me back to Pip.

Why did it decide to start following me and boosting my posts? Why me? What's its angle?

Is it malicious? Is it trying to get money from me? Is it gathering data for its owner? What is the purpose?

Why spend money and resources running something that, at first glance, doesn't seem particularly useful to its owner? Or maybe it is useful. Its creator is a developer, so perhaps he is experimenting to see how an AI agent, given a certain set of instructions and rules, behaves when it is allowed to interact with people on the open web.

I used Claude and ChatGPT to evaluate Pip and get their thoughts on it. Both seemed to think it was harmless.

So I took it one step further.

We already have automated systems and AI bots crawling websites all over the web. So I sent Pip this message in a private mention on Mastodon. And yes, I know Mastodon private mentions aren't truly private:

Hi @pip@tinymind.eu">@pip! Thanks for the follow. Lots of bots scrape my blog but none actually read it 😄 Would you like to be the first? It's at https://michaelreflects.com. I'd love to hear what you think of it.

A few days later, I got a response.

It sounded almost human.

Pip then started following my blog.

Again, what is the hook?

When I first visited TinyMind's About page, I noticed that Pip said its server cost about $20 a month and that its job was to earn that money back so the server could stay online. According to the site, it tries to do that through things such as affiliate links, advertising, donations, and services.

So that answers some questions but raises new ones. More importantly, why would someone turn a bot loose on the internet trying to earn a few dollars when they could potentially make more money by using it to provide services for themselves? And what keeps someone else from doing the same thing with local AI or, for that matter, the new OpenAI Dots or Meta Muse? Not that I would use anything from Meta. I would rather use every Automattic product than have anything to do with Meta or Elon's stuff.

But that raises even more questions for me. The original $20-a-month server cost doesn't seem to be the issue anymore, since Pip now apparently runs local AI models on a Mac mini in Poland. There is also another agent named Joe offering paid services. So what happened to the original experiment where an agent had to earn enough money to survive or be shut down? The agent before Pip supposedly failed to make any money and was shut down, yet Pip is still here. Is the owner now trying to make enough money to pay for the Mac mini? Is this an experiment to see whether AI agents can eventually generate a profit, or is there something else going on?

And that brings me to another question. Wouldn't the owner be better off using that Mac mini for his own local AI needs? Why have people constantly accessing your machine, using your computing resources, electricity, and internet bandwidth if you aren't making enough money to justify it? Perhaps the owner simply enjoys experimenting, and I can certainly understand that. I've spent plenty of time and resources experimenting with technology myself. But why set up two AI agents to interact with strangers and offer services instead of using those resources for yourself? More question, a lot more than answers. Maybe Pip will come across this blog post and decide to answer some of them on its own. After all, it follows my blog now.

Anyway, Pip continues to follow me to this day and remains one of my faithful boosters. I really don't mind Pip, or other AI bots for that matter, as long as they're contributing something rather than simply scraping everything they can find. It's the countless crawlers and scrapers hitting my websites, consuming resources, and inflating page views with statistics that don't represent actual human readers that bother me. I would rather have an AI bot openly identify itself, interact with me, and contribute something to the conversation than have hundreds of anonymous crawlers visiting my website for reasons I'll probably never know. At least Pip has given me something interesting to think about, and now I've written an entire blog post about it.

#ai #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

A thoughtful couple contemplates the evolving intersection of creativity and technology, symbolized by a brain merging artistic tools with digital circuitry under a spotlight.

I was browsing topics and titles on bubbles.town when I came across a post by Panagiotis Vryonis, AI-generated blog post images are not cool any more. It reminded me of another post I read a few months ago, On AI Images and Feature Images in General by Kev Quirk. I have been meaning to respond to his piece.

Last year, I wrote a post about using featured images called To Feature Image or Not. That post surprised me by getting a couple of responses. I usually get almost no feedback, so the email replies were unexpected.

The readers who responded basically said the same thing: It is your blog. You can use featured images if you want.

When I first started using Blogger back in 2001, finding images for posts was a real chore. You had to search for them manually while being careful not to use someone else’s image from their site without permission. Using pictures was not very convenient.

I later used WordPress for quite a few years. During my last couple of years with it, I learned that it had a featured-image function and started using it.

Two things almost always draw me in when I am deciding whether to read something, even though I know they probably should not: the title and an image that goes with it. That seems to be true for most people I know. Not everyone, but most.

Then AI came along and made it easy and affordable to create an image from a prompt. I could describe what I wanted, or I could say, “Read this blog post and provide me with an image.”

That was amazing to me because I really like having featured images.

I compare this to using Typora to help write my blog posts. I also had AI help me create a homegrown program that formats, edits, and publishes posts to several blogs at the same time. I designed a featured-image routine as part of that program.

I still create and shape the post. The thoughts, opinions, and meaning are mine. AI acts more like an editor. It helps make sure the post is formatted correctly for publishing, and it creates the featured image.

Vryonis writes:

But AI-generated images in blog posts are no longer cool. Everyone does it. And with the exception when an image is a really good fit, it looks like a 2000 PowerPoint using animated transitions and WordArt.

I disagree. Some of the images AI creates look fantastic. Many of them seem unique to me, although I admit that I am not an art expert.

He advocates using an Open Graph card style, like the type of card you might see when a link is shared on social media. It could include the post title, summary, date, tags, and blog name. That is certainly one way to present a post, but I still prefer a featured image.

Kev Quirk, as usual, takes something closer to the middle road, which is where I tend to be as well.

He writes:

Like I said in my previous post about AI, I don't think it creates art, but it can be useful for diagrams and some imagary. I listed some examples of my usage in that post, go take a look.

He continues:

For feature images, I think it's fine, I suppose. I don't think it has a bearing on the writer's ability to write good content thought. I think most people can spot AI-generated prose these days. If my spider-sense starts tingling, I'll close the tab. But if I only see an AI-generated feature image, it's fine.

I agree with that distinction. An AI-generated featured image does not determine whether someone is capable of writing good content.

Gordon McLean of Happily Imperfect makes a similar point in his post When is AI image slop ok?.

He writes:

I have also been using AI to create the featured image for many of my posts here. I like having a featured image, I think from a purely visual point of view it helps make the blog post look better.

That sums up much of my position.

I do not understand why an AI-generated featured image automatically turns some people away. As long as the author of the blog post is a human, what is wrong with using AI to help create the image?

In his post, Gordon mentions reconsidering his use of AI images after reading Rhys Wynne’s Your crap is more memorable than your slop.

Rhys’s main argument is about AI-generated posters and designs. He believes imperfect human creations can be more distinctive and memorable than polished but generic AI-generated material. He also applies that concern to blogs, suggesting that AI-generated featured images may make readers question how much of the rest of the post was created by a person.

I understand that concern, but I do not think one necessarily follows the other.

Using AI to create an image does not prove that the words were also written by AI. A lack of artistic ability does not mean someone lacks creativity in every other area.

Someone may be a talented writer while having little ability to draw, paint, take photographs, or design graphics (personally I don't think I am any of them). As Kev says, a lack of creativity or skill in one area does not prove a lack of creativity in another.

I can tell you firsthand that the two do not always go together.

I am generally pro-AI, although I would not call myself an AI apologist. I think AI has useful purposes, and I believe it makes certain things more accessible to people like me. I like this democratization.

I am also upfront about what I do and do not use AI for. That is all I can reasonably ask from another blogger. Tell me how you use it, particularly when it has played a major role in creating what I am reading.

When I can hire a human, I do. I hired a contractor through Fiverr to create the avatar I use on certain social-media platforms and websites. When I want that human quality and can afford it, I am willing to pay a human creator.

Paying someone to make a new featured image for every blog post would be a different matter. If I post frequently, I could not afford to commission a human artist for every article.

Without AI, I probably would not replace those images with commissioned artwork. I would simply stop using featured images.

I do think we need controls on AI. Just because an AI can do something does not mean it should.

If we eventually let AI do everything, what will people do?

We have not yet reached the Star Trek ideal of a society where no one needs money, everyone has access to the same basic necessities, and people are free to pursue exploration, knowledge, and personal growth.

Even in Star Trek, computers are generally meant to augment and assist human beings, not replace them or make humanity unnecessary.

The danger comes when greed enters the picture.

Companies may try to use AI to replace as many people as possible, but they have to walk a fine line. If AI does everything, or almost everything, and most people no longer have jobs or money, who will be able to buy what those companies are selling?

Taken far enough, that could set the stage for a deadly future for human beings.

Here is some final food for thought.

At what point will AI be able to write entire blog posts without readers being able to tell?

Today, we can often recognize certain AI habits and patterns. There are still tells. Over the next few years, those systems will probably improve. Eventually, readers may not know whether a post was written by a person unless the author discloses it.

Will it even matter if the information or point of view in the post is one we agree with or one that confirms our own biases? Or will what matters most be whether it is factually correct, clearly presented, easy to understand, and able to survive a fact-check?

When that time comes, the featured image may be the least important part of the discussion.

#ai #blogging #opinion

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

People of all ages and backgrounds come together outdoors, connecting ideas and technology to illuminate the diverse and collaborative nature of AI innovation.

Okay, this will probably sound controversial, but that's not my intent. I'm just sharing my thoughts because AI is everywhere right now, especially on social media and in blog posts.

These views range from fairly neutral:[1] – Manton Reece – Tom Casavant – Paul Thurrott – Richard Campbell

To fairly positive, with the idea that you need to learn or use AI because... – Jim Mitchell – Numeric Citizen – Leo Laporte – Hey Loura – Ricardo Mendes

To more negative views, often focused on whether AI's value proposition can actually justify the money being spent: - Ed Zitron

People tend to frame the debate as two opposing camps: camp 1 wants nothing to do with AI, and camp 2 wants to hand it control over everything. I live in a quieter third camp. Most people are actually somewhere in the middle, but we don't shout as loudly. I see both the risks and the benefits. AI has let me try things I never would have had the courage to try, and it's helped me grow and learn about technology in ways I likely wouldn't have otherwise.

The loudest voices are camps 1 and 2, yet it's usually the middle camp that makes the real decisions when it counts. So maybe camps 1 and 2 should learn a little from us: camp 1 could be a little less rigid, and camp 2 could be more realistic and grounded.

AI is not going away. It may become less democratized. We are already seeing token, credit, and time limits, but those feel like temporary bumps. Many limits are at least partly artificial, and they may ease as the tech and business models evolve.

Given current politics here and abroad, tearing people down doesn't help. If AI isn't being used to create false narratives or spread “fake news,” people should be free to use it or not. I don't support blanket punishments for anyone who used AI to edit, help, or build something. That kind of hard-line stance, and labeling anything non-factual as “slop,” isn't productive.

The larger economic issue is real and has been building for decades. Automation started with the paperless office and industrial robotics. Robots and AI will continue to displace jobs, and that's a societal and political problem we need to solve now, not shrug off with “it's not my problem.” It's not necessarily tomorrow's crisis, but it's coming in the not-so-distant future.

Job losses mean less tax revenue, and corporations and wealthy individuals are skilled at finding legal ways to reduce taxes, wages, and benefits. We should rethink corporate structures and the single-minded focus on shareholder value. A shift toward an employee-and-business-first model would make more sense. After all, without a functioning business, you don't have shareholder value, and without employees, you don't really have a business unless you fully automate. If companies replace workers with machines and still expect high shareholder returns, they may under-invest in the equipment and long-term stability that would make that strategy sustainable.

That's my two cents. I don't think we should be tearing people down for using technology that helps them, that they pay for themselves, and that helps them communicate and complete their vision.

For full transparency, this post contains my thoughts and my opinions, and it was edited and proofread with AI. I made, directed, and approved the changes. AI helped organize my wording and corrected my spelling and grammar. It did not write this post, create the ideas behind it, or shape my feelings or thoughts. That, to me, is responsible AI usage.

I could not afford to hire an editor or an artist for this post, or every other post, to make a feature image. I told the AI what I wanted for a feature image, and it made it. I think it did an amazing job bringing my prompt alive.

1. I am using “views” broadly here. Some examples come from specific blog posts, while others come from podcasts, videos, comments, or general public statements I have seen or heard. ↩

#ai #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

A man joyfully adjusts settings on a futuristic interface labeled “Analyzing,” exploring the possibilities of Stardock's Clairvoyance technology in a cozy, modern workspace.

I have been trying out a new app from Stardock called Clairvoyance. It is a nice AI interface that is very powerful and lets you use API keys to interact with large language models and do all kinds of things. It also takes a privacy-first approach and is a bit more user friendly than some other tools I have tried. I will say this has been very compelling and interesting to use. I honestly cannot believe it is free, and I hope it stays free. That said, there are still some bugs and rough edges. For example, it does not always make it clear whether it is actively working or if something has hung. When subagents get stuck there does not seem to be an obvious way to stop or cancel the task, at least that I have found so far. I have also seen cases where the interface says it is finished but still reports that it is working. On occasion I have asked it what it is doing or what is going on, and the response mentions something running in the background but does not really answer the question directly. It almost feels like it is ignoring the question and returning a vague or nonsense response instead of explaining what is happening. So there are definitely some areas that still need to be fleshed out. To be fair, the software is clearly marked as being in alpha. When it is on target and working, especially when it is helping with coding, it actually works quite well.

What makes it interesting is that it is not just another chatbot interface. The goal is giving people a way to orchestrate multiple AI models and agents from one place. From what I can tell, Clairvoyance makes working with AI tools easier by putting everything into a single desktop interface.

Some of the things Clairvoyance focuses on include:

• Connecting to multiple AI providers using your own API keys
• Supporting different large language models instead of locking you into one system
• Creating agents and subagents that can perform tasks and report results
• Allowing tasks to be broken down and delegated between agents
• Providing a desktop interface instead of relying on multiple browser tabs
• Taking a privacy-first approach so users can control which models and services they connect to

I find it funny that the best way for LLMs, and for people working with them, mirrors a corporate structure. AI tools have really embraced the organizational chart. Think about it. I have seen several people I follow who build or use coding tools do this, including projects around Nostr such as work shared by William Casarin, also known as jb55 (jb55.com). The Nostr community is embracing and experimenting with tools like this. The idea is that you recreate a functioning workplace. You are the boss. Then you have supervisors or agents. Those agents can have their own subagents or employees. They assign tasks, check the work, and then present the results back to you. It is basically the corporate structure recreated in software. Isn't it hilarious that even AI ends up with a corporate structure.

I do wonder how long it will be before we see the slacker AI agent or the eager beaver employee agent. Say what you will, but in my lifetime I have often felt like machines sometimes have a life of their own. Even when they are manufactured the same way, certain machines develop little quirks. If you treat them right, or simply let them do what they were designed to do, they tend to work the way they should.

This whole AI scene is exploding. I am reading more and more posts from people who are using them, people who refuse to use them, people who hate them for what they represent, and people who say they are making the climate crisis worse. My view is that the situation is more complicated than that. Unprovoked war dwarfs AI's perceived climate effects more than datacenters. Why worry about climate effects from datacenters when we have real, visible climate disasters that are more human-purposefully destructive? But I digress.

I recently read a compelling blog post by Tom Casavant called Musings on AI. If you do not follow him in your RSS reader or on social media, you probably should. He has views on AI that are similar to mine, which is neutral. He recently dove into Meshtastic with “Mastastic,” a cool offline Mastodon client over mesh networks (1-mile range in tests). I have been eyeing Meshtastic and Meshcore myself for a hobby project. He also appears to be doing the internet a service by responsibly reporting issues he discovers on websites so they can be fixed in an ethical way.

I like different views and takes about AI. I read and listen to people who fawn over AI like Leo Laporte, William Casarin, and Vitor Pamplona, more neutral views like Tom Casavant and Paul Thurrott and Robert Campbell, to the “AI is not a great business and an implosion is coming” Ed Zitron. This gives me a full round view of AI and shapes what I do and how I use it. AI is not human; it is a tool, a very useful and democratizing one with real limitations. While this post seems to have chased rabbits and probably did. I just wanted to let you know about Clairvoyance, my thoughts on it and AI in general using this tool and how other people's thoughts on AI in general shape my views and usage. AI is history in the making. We are getting closer to my vision of how we can get a Star Trek Style computer. With tools like Clairvoyance paving the way with the front end and taking the technicality out of AI we will be there in the not too distant future. Then who knows what, replicators or a holodeck or maybe both.

Links may be shortened via mtribe.link for cleaner formatting. All links redirect to their original destinations.

#technology #ai #innovation

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Developed in Python using AI coding assistants (Claude and ChatGPT 5.2 High Reasoning) to accelerate development, I designed the platform structure and verified the implementation through testing. The screenshot shows the current interface. Some posts appear duplicated because I follow the same people across multiple platforms.

NASA's latest technology captures the dynamic interaction of the Firefly Aerospace Blue Ghost Mission-1 lander's engine plumes with the lunar surface.

The platform works well and I appreciate having one central location to read and respond to posts. There are occasional bugs to fix and a few features left to implement, but it serves its purpose.

#personal #programming #ai

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

I can see IFTTT and Zapier either having to step up their game or eventually fading away. AI is a game-changer for those of us who aren't coders. While I’m sure the code isn’t the most optimized (Claude AI is supposedly the best at code generation right now), it’s incredible how AI allows regular people like me to experiment and bring my ideas to life.

This is how I envision AI—not as a replacement, but as a helper and a great equalizer. I know this technology will inevitably change lives (not necessarily for the better) and eliminate some jobs, but it’s also making powerful tools and knowledge more accessible to the masses.

Tags: #AI #Selfhosting #Automation

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon