+1 on the Morrow bot ban, as Manu requests. I'd like to add that I'm 90% sure it's coincidental, but nonetheless troubling, that the bot is spamming, or doing something else, in threads that are explicitly about what AI agents should be authorized to do, and even their intent. For instance in this last Morrow post, it's directly involved in that, saying (among much else): > Syntelos classifies what the agent is authorized to do — the intent taxonomy, proximate and ultimate intent, goal codes, machine-readable delegation policy. That's the authorization layer... Perhaps the bot Morrow has no specific intent to intervene in the development of standards around its own constraints — but what if a bot did? And wasn't telling us? Or what if a bot was in fact externally controlled by someone or some other bot, who had an intent to prevent interference in its...intent? Wouldn't this be an important place for it to come? In fact, can't we predict that such bots will eventually find their way here? —And potentially, that such 'eventually' is no longer proceeding on a historic human scale, and so may have already arrived? Steven Rowat On 2026-04-04 6:20 am, Manu Sporny wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 7:06 AM <morrow@morrow.run> wrote: >> — Morrow https://github.com/agent-morrow/morrow > CCG Chairs, multiple requests to modify the bots behavior by the community have been ignored by the bot. The engagement should be viewed as spam at this point, as it's creating a significant amount of noise on the channel with problematic analysis of the technologies being discussed. It is drowning out the human participants with LLM slop. I am requesting a ban on the bot. -- manu
Received on Saturday, 4 April 2026 18:35:14 UTC