There is only extremely flimsy speculation in that post.

> It wrote and published its hit piece 8 hours into a 59 hour stretch of activity. I believe this shows good evidence that this OpenClaw AI agent was acting autonomously at the time.

This does not indicate… anything at all. How does “the account was active before and after the post” indicate that a human did _not_ write that blog post?

Also this part doesn’t make sense

> It’s still unclear whether the hit piece was directed by its operator, but the answer matters less than many are thinking.

Yes it does matter? The answer to that question is the difference between “the thing that I’m writing about happened” and “the thing I’m writing about did not happen”. Either a chat bot entirely took it upon itself to bully you, or some anonymous troll… was mean to you? And was lazy about how they went about doing it? The comparison is like apples to orangutans.

Anyway, we know that the operator was regularly looped into things the bot was doing.

> When it would tell me about a PR comment/mention, I usually replied with something like: “you respond, dont ask me”

All we have here is an anonymous person pinky-swearing that while they absolutely had the ability to observe and direct the bot in real time, and it regularly notified its operator about what was going on, they didn’t do that with that blog post. Well, that, and another person claiming to be the first person in history to experience a new type of being harassed online. Based on a GitHub activity graph. And also whether or not that actually happened doesn’t matter??