You mistake me as trying to convince you of it’s objective truth, rather than sharing information that stands even without the whistleblower.

Sorry, I misunderstood your tone then, and I do appreciate the information you’ve shared. We are on the same page here, all I’m really arguing about is the legitimacy of the initial link.

Someone could’ve figured out it was super weird a org backed by Marc had a public example like that and made this all up. But why was it there in the first place?

And why is it still there? That’s what really sticks out to me. That’s why I called it “bait” in my original comment, because it’s exactly what this feels like. There is just something undeniably off with the way this narrative is being presented, even without taking the lack of hard evidence into account. I’d be very curious to find out how and where it began circulating.

Honestly I’m still shocked some of the content of that file can apparently be made publicly available on GitHub without violating their ToS. But that’s probably just me being naive at this point.

Confused what you mean by the API. Eliza is a framework for agents right? Whatever they were doing they’d do it via their internal API as it already has all the methods etc for posting. So they could either write something custom like eliza to manage that bit, or just connect Eliza?

You’re correct in your understanding that it’s definitely possible and I didn’t say it isn’t. They could’ve simply written their own client for it, or they could’ve used it regardless. It’s just… Really stupid. Disappointingly so if that turned out to be the case. The complete lack of technical details in the “whistleblowing” post doesn’t help, but even without going that deep into the repo you can tell it’s not a particularly sophisticated piece of software, it’s simply a “bridge” connecting agents (bots powered by generative models) and clients (social media and various other services). It’s useless on its own, and it’s not something that X (and anyone with access to its resources) couldn’t have done themselves way better considering that they already own considerable stakes on both sides of the bridge, that they developed themselves.

I still stand by my initial assessment that this is most likely a group that is simply using some disturbingly creative disinformation tactics to implicitly claim affiliation with subjects like Andreessen and Musk and fundamentally “promote” their “product” without even being subtle about its potential criminal and/or disruptive uses.